I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

Facts

The Golak Nath family challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act placed in the Ninth Schedule, and questioned the competence of Parliament to amend fundamental rights through the 1st, 4th and 17th Amendments. The case reconsidered the earlier view in Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh that fundamental rights were amendable.

Issues

• Whether a constitutional amendment is 'law' within the meaning of Art 13(2)
• Whether Parliament can amend Part III to take away or abridge fundamental rights

Arguments

The petitioners argued fundamental rights are transcendental and immune from amendment, and amendments fall within Art 13(2). The State argued Art 368 confers a distinct constituent power, and amendments are not ordinary 'law'.

Held

By a 6:5 majority the Court overruled Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh and held that an amendment under Art 368 is 'law' within Art 13(2), so Parliament cannot abridge fundamental rights. Applying prospective overruling, the Court left past amendments undisturbed and held the bar would operate prospectively. It held that amending Part III would require a new Constituent Assembly.

Ratio decidendi

Fundamental rights in Part III cannot be abridged or taken away by a constitutional amendment, as such amendment is 'law' under Art 13(2).

Significance

A landmark precursor to the basic structure doctrine; it prompted the 24th Amendment, which inserted Art 13(4) and Art 368(1)/(3). Golak Nath was later overruled by Kesavananda Bharati, but it marked the first judicial assertion of limits on amending fundamental rights.

Related